list_subscriptionsList the caller's active subscriptions. Returns id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count for each. Use this to review what you're monitoring before adding more or to find an id to cancel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include cancelled subscriptions in the response (default false). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it scopes results to 'the caller's' subscriptions and enumerates the exact return fields (id, type, params, created_at, last_fired_at, fire_count). This goes beyond the annotations' generic safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and return fields; the second gives actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list-with-one-optional-parameter tool, the description completely covers what the tool does, what it returns, and why you'd use it. No output schema is needed given the explicit field list. No missing context is apparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter include_inactive, so the schema fully explains its meaning. The tool description does not add extra detail about the parameter, but the baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List the caller's active subscriptions' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by listing the exact fields returned, confirming its role as a read-only listing tool compared to subscribe/unsubscribe.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use cases: 'review what you're monitoring before adding more' (to avoid duplicate subscriptions) and 'to find an id to cancel' (for unsubscribe). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, the guidance is clear and contextually relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in purpose, and structure/summary both fetch PDB entries. The server name 'Rcsb Pdb' doesn't match most tools, which are Pipeworx data tools, compounding ambiguity.
Mostly snake_case verb_noun, but verbs are inconsistent (ask, discover, generate, list, recall) and some names are noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). No clear pattern unifies the set.
37 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly about RCSB PDB; only 6 tools relate to PDB while 31 serve unrelated Pipeworx functionality. The count feels like a bundled grab-bag rather than a focused toolset.
The PDB-specific tools cover the core operations (search, fetch, assembly, ligand, polymer entity), so the structural biology surface is mostly complete. However, the server's overall purpose is muddled, and the Pipeworx tools are a separate domain that happens to be bundled in, making it unclear what 'completeness' even means for this server.